Is Atheism A Choice?

The title is pretty self-explanatory. I had just assumed that after my research and falling out, I chose to be an Atheist. The other day I was speaking to my brother, and he said that to him Atheism wasn't really a choice. And in a way it's true. I don't think I could ever force myself to return to Christianity or believe the things I was taught. I'm kind of stuck, really. So, what do you think? Is atheism a choice?

Replies to This Discussion

The answer I have given below to Rob van Senten includes an answer to your question too. I would not attempt to change a so well established definition and even if I dare to do so, I will have to provide massive explaination. The definition of atheism does not tell us when atheism arises in our mind.

I agree with you that atheism is not a statement of knowledge, and I do not intend to change its definition also. It is my belief that atheism comes by and should come through knowledge. We become atheists even after having been religious because of whatever knowledge we have, where as a small child is not able to distinguish between faith and atheism and is unable to make any distinction between the two. Therefore, such a child at its age or at its birth can not be said to an atheist. My definition of an atheist is the same as that has been stated by many here, that is, someone who does not believe in any supernatural power.

Atheism therefore is not a statement of knowledge but a demonstrable effect of knowledge.

As long as kids are not capable of understanding theism they are by definition atheists. Not because they have knowledge about (a)theism, but because they lack a belief in a deity.

If you use the same definition I really don't see why you could say that "atheism comes by and should come through knowledge" as that does not computer if you use the definition that atheism is a "lack of belief".

You are an atheist towards deities that you've never heard before, not because you have knowledge about these beliefs, but because you lack belief.

How many religions and deities should you have knowledge off before you can reject theism and become an atheist? And if knowledge is a part of being an atheist, than please provide your own definition that shows that atheism is not about a lack of belief but that it's about knowledge as well.

You are an atheist towards deities that you've never heard before, not because you have knowledge about these beliefs, but because you lack belief.

This appears to mean that atheism is directed towards a particular deity or deities, but when one becomes an atheist, one decides that no supernatural power exists. I know that this is not my definition because I have sen this here at AN too. Possibly, it can be found elsewhere too. This definition makes me think that atheism is knowledge based.

It is a practice amnog Hindus in India to make even a child of less than one year old to fold his hands in worshipp, regularly. What can be the status of such a child?

Talking of myself, I had little or no idea of Judaic/Christian god or other gods. I became an atheist by deciding that a supernatural power that can create miracles etc can not exist.

Atheism is not aimed at a particular deity, I attempted to use these examples as a method of showing that atheism is not about knowledge (of religion/deities/supernatural or whatever).

Atheism is not the rejection of the supernatural, although most atheists would happily reject the supernatural. It is nothing more then a lack of belief in a deity.

I lack belief in deities for the same reason that I do not believe in sentient strawberries; I am not convinced by the claim that it is true. I don't have to proof that sentient strawberries do not exist, which is why I lack belief.

I'm not saying that there are no sentient strawberries, that would be a claim of knowledge. I am simply lacking belief in them because I haven't been presented with sufficient evidence.

One can choose whether or not to expose oneself to evidence. One can choose whether or not to listen to other points of view. One can even choose to deny evidence in spite of having been exposed to it, or to denounce opposing views as lies. What one cannot do is face all of the evidence, listen carefully to others' views, analyze the resulting knowledge in an intellectually honest way, and still fail to conclude that religious belief is baseless. Red pill, blue pill. Once the machinery that perpetuates religion is exposed, it loses all of its power and the only way back is to lose or repress the knowledge of its true nature.

Of course atheism is a choice. Religious people can refuse to expose themselves to real science based ideas and ways of thinking (vs. christian scientology). How do believers reconcile the errors in religious texts without intellectual dishonesty? It seems that intellectual dishonesty is key to believing in things you know aren't true. It's intellectually dishonest to deny yourself information in order to continue believing in superstition and myth.